Whether Black Lives Matter

No, they do not matter to me. I fell for the faux Oprah scholarship partei line the first time.

Back in 2008 when she exuded regarding Obama that – “He’s Brilliannnnnnnt !!!”

Not this time. Regarding Obama, I shamefully found her gushing exultation credible, and dutifully listened to a couple of his speeches and thought, hey he might not be all that bad.

Which I definitely in hindsight must now take full exception to upon reflection and observation of him, post election. Now that I’ve seen first hand his long “Soul Train” record of abuses and usurpations everywhere he’s traveled, and just like all his predecessors before him imposed on the nation as well.

He most certainly isn’t brilliant. He’s terrible.

I seriously doubt he wrote those novels, he’s allegedly the “author” of.

If he comes up on a screen anywhere, I make it a point to turn him off. I can’t even listen to him.I can’t even healthily discuss how much I can’t even stand to hear his voice reading from the teleprompter.

This is meant to be an open topic. Do you concur? Do you vehemently disagree? Do you hold an entirely different perspective you’d like to add to this topic, so we all might engage in friendly pursuit of the truth by means of thinking and disagreeing with each other, in a friendly, and gentlemanly like fashion?

Speculation Regarding Large Scale Caliphate Immigration Into the United States.

I try not to have any opinion about any government action. But if I were to break this vow, and take a position, I would certainly “vote” to only allow the most draconian levels of immigrants from countries known to be overrun by Jihadists.

If “we” want to be helpful, we have to think of our own well being first. We can still be amazingly charitable to such incompatible foreigners somewhere else. Instead of anywhere within the mainland United States, which already have plenty of opportunities for altruism and rendering of aid to the needy peoples already resident and struggling to survive at home.

12. Man’s Rights by Ayn Rand (modify this as it suits you, this is not some creed to memorize and obey. This must be YOUR freely chosen moral code.)

If one wishes to advocate a free society—that is, capital­ism—one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them.

And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and sel­dom discussed by pretty much everyone.

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individu­al’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subor­dinating society to moral law.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the indi­vidual to some higher authority, either mystical or social.

Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse.

Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; sub­ject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”

This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Di­vine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first—”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second.

As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god—the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens—the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome—the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages—the absolute monarchy of France—the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia—the gas chambers of Nazi Germany—the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.

All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics—and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipo­tent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.

The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals.

All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral pur­pose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-gener­ated action—which means: the freedom to take all the ac­tions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifi­cally, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any prop­erty, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human his­tory that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congres­sional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basi­cally, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government.

The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

The result was the pattern of a civilized society which—for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years—America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully ac­cepted nor consistently practiced.

America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capital­ism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pur­suit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.

It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin.

A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights.

The process entails such a growth of newly prom­ulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” ne­gate authentic rights.

Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phe­nomena: of alleged new “rights” and of slave-labor camps.

The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.

The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national con­science sixteen years ago.”

Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which that platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportu­nity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obliga­tion, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interfer­ence or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, re­quires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” It does not demand that private citizens provide a micro­phone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.

Such is the state of one of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

“Why are black babies aborted way out of proportion to percentage of black population?”
Couldn’t have anything to do w/the fact that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, leader of the eugenics movement in the US, could it?
Did you ever wonder why such a large % of PP clinics are in black neighborhoods, especially low income ones?

And look, here are some writing gigs. Yes caveat emptor, you’ll have to vet these yourself, America is full of scammers, and Craiglist Boston is full of Americans.https://boston.craigslist.org/search/wet

It confuses me to no end, but for whatever reason, even the best among us are more interested in what the politicians, religious icons, philosophical, and government people have to say about this site. Than in pitching in making it better. Or in starting our own competing site.

In other words, we all prefer to be second handers. Talking about reality as others make it, and only chiming in with our two fiat cents about a few things or other.

Well, that’s our right. And perhaps, also our folly, and reason we’re in this degraded situation.

Perhaps it is only when forced, that we’ll brave the free market and see what one can do simply by placing notices, and responding to notices. Most of them free, of few of them for a fee. We don’t like the free market, except when there’s no other free lunches to eat, or to write a review on Yelp about.

We likely have the kind of society we deserve really.

As to black lives. The ones that can’t even aspire to our own low standards, and are marooned here as an underclass. And no one is interested or motivated, to cut them loose and give them their own space to make a go of it. (Not all blacks, just the ones that don’t grok or agree with Judeo Christian majority society.)

Fact is, the black people that were both taken and properly bought and sent here from Africa, were widely agreed to be the greatest available human laborers ever to have existed.

Human machines worth a very high price. But ones we’ve allowed to fall into disrepair and junky husks, of wasted value.

It is on us, that we’ve allowed them to degrade into largely a useless and destructive population of malcontents, degens, and childlike freeloaders.

And its on me, that I prefer their company to so called “moral society” and their thoughtless submission to every insult and imposition by every Tom Dick and Harry with a Shingle or a Shiny Badge to their name.

Truth be told, in a lot of ways, they might matter more than the bobbleheads that infest the average suburb and seeks to dominate the world these days. I’m open to learning more though, of course, this doesn’t seem like the whole story at all.

The sadistic inventions of game makers are meant to make sport of our deaths.

~Katniss Everdeen~: We all have one enemy! He corrupts everyone, and everything! He turns the best of us against each other. Stow away your arrows, guns, and bombs. Tonight, fashion even better weapons, to keep out the Capitol!

Your weapons of superior creativity, productivity, and ingenuity will make your redoubt a better world where you’re no longer caught up in such meaningless games.

What is your belief system and moral compass. What do you really think about mainstream beliefs and customs. Observe and meditate on these videos, if you’re like me, you’ll “hear” some answers, and begin plumbing your true inner dimensions while watching these “Hermann Rorschach” videos.

Don’t got money, we don’t need fame
But we all want something rather like it anyway
Power is a monster with a charlatan smile
And we all lead different, very separate lives

Leave your bones in the desert, your soul in the sand
We’re a thousand-piece puzzle scattered into the wind
Like barrier islands, so distant and alone
The world is so much better when it’s less that you know

We are different branches of a few separate vines
A blaze on the levee, a vessel out at sea
One guides the other safely into the lee

If all men are islands, then each of us is bound
To the crooked, deep depths of the lost and the found
To the infinite depths until we’re all found out
Living out our different, separate lives

Now I know my XXX(Roman numerals for 30 letter cryptobets.). Next time won’t you wind talk with me?

02 04 18 & 25 are salt and pepper symbols. sprechen Sie XXX to keep speech free. Would you could you with a fox. Would you could you outside their box?

Or just skip the salt symbols to code like a Man In The High Castle.

The quick brown… Vjg twkdm cuqzp… jumps over… lxorv qygu…

07v07ry23hing I’v07 don07 in my car0707r has s23ar2307d in and around D07troi23, you know, 23he m0723ro ar07a and Michigan.
Kid Rock

– cowboy baby, with the top let down and the sunshine shinin’

I25 co04m18e fr25om t0408he sta18te of Mich25iga25n. We wer02e the fir02st Eng04lish-speaking govern25ment in the worl18d to outlaw the death penalt04y, back in the 1840s. We have ne18ver had, as a state, the death pe25nalty in Michigan. I was raised with that, and even Rep04ublicans in Michigan, nob02ody would even think* of putting a meas18ure on the ballot to have the death pen25alty.
Michael Moore

– really Mikey. Well I’ll just take a nap and relax then, since I have your assurances and wisdom to rely on now.

I’m from the far greater north above le détroit du lac Érié. (sait to be at 42°19′53″N), but know it well. Driven past million dollar homes there and turned a corner and spied some lady being engaged in coitus against a brick wall, with nothing but the shadows to obscure her surrendering to the purest animal act that’s the most essential basic act of life.

I am not mocking you’all’s and anyone’s morality that has gotten their bloodlines to such a lofty station. I’m mocking this sick instance of mass hallucinated Justice. I’m Mocking the game-maker’s Jay. The holocaust tragecluster that passes these days for “justice.”

Especially near my home or hangouts, I may just drop to whatever slow speed is required to never potentially gravely injure a fellow human beings let the Gamemen and their cursed signs be damned.

I ain’t no Clover that kills. Cause he’s got the law and the taste of blood and roses in the back of his throat.

I’m not a piece of theirs. They’ll have no piece of me. Heck I might have even once mounted a lady right out on some stairs in that very neighborhood, with only a willow tree. Or dozens of times been in the enclosures of dumpsters, because they’re always close at hand, and I’m not yet the sickly sort.

I reject all notions there is one superior universal morality. You want to take my code from me and impose your own. Molon labe.

Maybe I’ll head over to snort a line right now to fit the locale, sure it’s corn starch, vitamin power, but I can play Anon Anarcho Texas Hold’em 24/7 to keep things real like back in the D or today right here in a hail to the V; I’ll act the fool who mimics the native’s crimes, likewise defy the Capitol and risk potentially also doing the time.

The stare and strut, might not only be NAP for those with limited skills, it might be their best chance of survival. Who am I to tell them to knock of the Victorian Era saunter and achtung to the city’s faggit ass rectangles on sticks, cuz I’m death on wheels and on geez-patrol, demonstrating my ways are more sacred than their own flesh and bones caged souls.

I’m just thinking outside all the boxes, even those considered the most highly sought presents of recorded history. That’s how sciences and engineerings commence, with no assumptions or received superstitions. Even the one’s that “do good” or so they say.

That’s the way I was taught. I now think it is more often wrong than right. Individuals can make a difference, of course, and so can political parties or big companies … But if there is one dominant myth about the world, … it is that we all go around assuming the world is much more of a planned place that it really is.

A brilliant argument for evolution that definitively dispels a dangerous, widespread myth: that we can command and control our world.

The Evolution of Everything is about bottom-up order and its enemy, the top-down twitch—the endless fascination human beings have for design rather than evolution, for direction rather than emergence.

Drawing on anecdotes from science, economics, history, politics and philosophy, Matt Ridley’s wide-ranging, highly opinionated opus demolishes conventional assumptions that major scientific and social imperatives are dictated by those on high, whether in government, business, academia, or morality.

On the contrary, our most important achievements develop from the bottom up. Patterns emerge, trends evolve. Just as skeins of geese form Vs in the sky without meaning to, and termites build mud cathedrals without architects, so brains take shape without brain-makers, learning can happen without teaching and morality changes without a plan.

Although we neglect, defy and ignore them, bottom-up trends shape the world. The growth of technology, the sanitation-driven health revolution, the quadrupling of farm yields so that more land can be released for nature—these were largely emergent phenomena, as were the Internet, the mobile phone revolution, and the rise of Asia.

The arguments for design is demolished and the case is effectively made for evolution in the universe, morality, genes, the economy, culture, technology, the mind, personality, population, education, history, government, God, money, and the future.

This stunning perspective will revolutionize the way you think about our world and how it works.

An interesting book about human society and culture. Notes are good and I liked his research and felt that it was accurate.

When he gets a little too into the details it does not last long. He writes about all levels of human society from religion to science. He talks about how people are the ones who change things not government or great men.

I have never thought about that before so it was interesting to think about how the masses affect things for the positive. I am now sold on what Ridley says and I want to do more research into bottom-up change.

We call it like it is. Understand timing is everything. Make everything run smoothly. Make educated guess and then immediately seek to know through measurement.

Check the easy stuff first. Fix problems, not place blame.
Open to hearing about your better way, just say so.
Believe real-time hands on planning is more efficient.
Give customers what’s needed, as well as what’s asked for.
It’s worth doing right the first time. And faster.
Anything “free” is probably worth less than you paid.
Never miss a chance to put a smile on your face.
Can become expert in something before you can figure out we weren’t already.

from Heinlein:

“A good engineer is a fellow who can do for a nickel what any damn fool can do for a dollar.”

“Progress isn’t made by early risers. It’s made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.”

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

Competitve rates for product dev and instrumentation design for other companies. Work involves microprocessors and DSPs along with PC software for both Windows and Linux. Significant expertise in all forms of electronic engineering, from low level analog to RF to computers of all kinds, and using all kinds of devices, even vacuum tubes and custom transformers.

In-house fast prototyping facility that includes PC board manufacture, machining and many other types of materials fabrication abilities.

Turn your idea into physical reality in mere hours. Prefer multi-discipline sorts of things, capitalizing on the excessive specialization of others by being specialists in lots of disparate arts and tying it all together in new ways.

Renaissance men, synthesists as well as general purpose from-scratch inventors able to make it pay by being effective at it.

If you’ve got a strange or tough problem, we’re the guys who can and will solve it fast and economically for you, because that is how we have fun.

If you’ve got a need for some boring Windows database/financial programming or a ring-0 opsys driver that needs to workaround a badly flawed hardware design, be prepared to pay our topmost rates in the unlikely event we’d even accept your job.

Unless you need us to teach you how to train MLFF neural nets on a Linux cluster to mine your financial database, which then falls back into the fun category. Concentrate on the better things in life. 42, for those in the know.

Åsa Romson, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden (from the Green Party and fanatically pro-immigration) cries during a press conference announcing new immigration deal reached with the Social Democratic Party that reduces immigration into Sweden.
Sweden Deputy Prime Minister Cries During Announcementhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKXEUalVsWc

Observe the body language of the man next to her. Years of feminist, man bashing and male oppression have completely destroy the combative Sweden man. You cannot count on Sweden men anymore women, you are alone, enjoy your utopia.

Same thing is true in Canada. If you want a real man, immigrate to Russia.﻿

Sweden is a feminist matriarchal society. Women are useless at government and managing, Short of putting a patriarchal form of governance like Russian this country will become a third world country like Libya .This country is finished Same problem with England, France and Canada.﻿
[- I certainly hope so, I hate govts and want to see them fail, or be ignored]

This is just really embarassing. For me. As a swedish citizen. THATS the person who is vice prime-minister in Sweden and shes crying cuz she cant have her imaginary world anymore. Sweden is going down fast.

The Turk’s empire, occupied by victorious western powers since World War I, is the blueprint for the future of the world. A Secular Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Caliphate.

The modern ottomans, are the ones we rest our feet on. While we stare vapidly into our teevees, and other ruling gadgets and devices.

Dhimmis were the first Mundanes. People like us weren’t allowed to have firearms, or to even carry a stick. We had to pay a large tribute (jizya) to the government (just as we do today, though they’re now called taxes, not jizya). Owners of land back then paid kharaj tax, today they pay property tax.

Clover is a modern day Dhim, all too happy to veg out on his Free Government Surplus Ottoman.

The Ottoman Empire recognized three groups of non-Muslim minorities: People of the Book, protected minorities, and non-Muslims. (Nowadays, in this Secular Reimagination, the book is having a government gig, or working in a crony industry, or being part of a useless idiot minority group.)

Dhimmis were not forced to follow Islamic law, they had considerable freedom of choice, and had their own religious organizations.

This system has been considered the Ottoman Empire’s greatest strength and weakness.

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam’s domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).

In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians. The early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities. The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as followers. Followers also known as “the ruled”, or “non-participants in government”.

As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, this status should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema (modern times: lawyers) devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system complex, after reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.

The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

The Millet System

Three days after Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror entered Constantinople (1453), he told everyone to go home and continue his or her occupation and religion.

He supervised the election of a new Greek Patriarch, a monk named Genadius, who was elected by Synod and consecrated.

He proclaimed the patriarch-elect in the most honorific terms, gave him the pastoral staff with his own hands, and said: Be patriarch, live with us in peace, and enjoy all the privileges of your predecessors.

Though other communities later were recognized in the same terms, the Greek Orthodox Church has always had more privileges and stronger ties with the central government.

Gradually, dealing with minorities engendered the millet system. Controlling the minority communities through their local bishops and rabbis stopped, and the whole Orthodox Church was organized as Rum Milleti (Roman people).

The patriarch collected and allocated the poll tax and served as his community’s temporal leader. He was assigned a ceremonial rank with three tugs (horsetails), allowed his own court and prison in Istanbul’s Fener district, and had unlimited civil jurisdiction over and responsibility for his community. The State assigned him other duties and enforced the laws that he laid down for his community.

Since Islamic law is corporate (not territorial) and Ottoman society was corporate in nature, the Ottoman State dealt with dhimmis as members of a community and not as individuals.

A community member was directly responsible for and accountable to the community. Thus the government protected the communities from internal and external aggression, while the community’s leaders managed its affairs.

Each millet’s leader represented his people, and these matters were dealt with through the Foreign Ministry. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch had the rank of vizier and was provided with a guard of Janissaries (soldiers).

The sixteenth-century conquests in the Islamic lands and the capture of Cyprus and Crete brought many Orthodox Christians and the ancient patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria under Muslim control. As the patriarch was influential with the sultan, arrangements were made through which the Greek elements became dominant.

The Jewish Millet.

The Conqueror allowed the Jews, recognized as another millet, to settle in Istanbul. He appointed a Chief Rabbi with powers similar to those enjoyed by the patriarch. Although outcasts under the Byzantines, they now started holding various public offices. Jews fleeing persecution in Spain and elsewhere were welcomed into Ottoman lands.

Each minority community was treated according to how it had been incorporated into the Ottoman State. Muslims favored Jews over Christians, since Christians were suspected of being too sympathetic to Christian Europe.

The Jews had no central authority to follow and be instigated by, save that of the office of Chief Rabbi, which the Ottoman authorities could check easily.

Also belonging to this millet were all unclassified subjects, such as the Bogomils and the Paulicans, two heretical sects that originated from the Armenian church. Other members included various Catholic and other Christian groups that the Orthodox Church considered heretical.

The devshirme and ghulam systems

This devshirme system was based on traditional views of dealing with prisoners of war. In the classical Islamic period, jurists advised immediate execution, allowing some or all to be ransomed or freed, exchanges for Muslim prisoners, or enslavement.

Islam allowed slaves to be emancipated; the Ottomans did not. One-fifth of all captives entered the ghulam system (the sultan’s slave family), and were trained and allowed to rise within the system. Such slaves were recruited from Christians aged 10 to 20 years. The preferred ages were between 14 and 18, and boys younger than 12 or older than 20 were considered only in exceptional cases.

Recruits were obtained through capture, purchase, gift, or tribute. Slaves not bought for the sultan or given to him were usually either captives or levied with the tribute boys. There was hardly any other way, since slaves passed too rapidly into the Muslim fold to have their children available for the system.

Reliable statistical data is rare, but based on contemporary ac-counts, in the sixteenth century probably 3,000 children were recruited annually. Those within the system might have reached as high as 80,000, and the total number recruited throughout the centuries might have been close to 2 million.

This exclusion of all other Muslims’ children and grandchildren lasted until Suleyman the Magnificent broke them. He allowed the Janissaries’ children to join their ranks or other parts of the system. This proved to be a fatal move, for it became the only hereditary institution after the sultanate.

At first, parents were anxious to keep their children out of the system. But later on, even Muslim families tried to get their children into it because of the prestige it conferred.

Originally restricted to the sons of villagers and poor families, it eventually spread to the townsmen’s children. The earlier practice resulted in great social upward mobility; the later practice opened up a new way of accumulating wealth and prestige, and thus undermined the State.

This tribute system brought children from Austria, the Caucasus, the Crimea, and the Balkans. Those captured by raiders and corsairs were presented to the sultan as gifts.

Otherwise, recruiting officers visited some villages every 4 years to fill their quota. The officer summoned the priest and got a list of children, visited the houses, and took the most suitable children. If he received more than required, the surplus was sold elsewhere. Contemporary accounts say that it produced the ablest and most talented children.

These children became known as ghilman. The sultan had the absolute sovereignty over them. However, they felt honored by this title and tried to show their loyalty to him.

The Ottoman system raised slaves to ministers of state, courtiers, husbands of princesses, rulers of the Islamic state, soldiers and generals, bureaucrats and prime ministers. Race was irrelevant, for only potential talent was considered.

They were taught Turkish, Arabic, Persian, physical training, war affairs, administration, the Ottoman governing institutions, and so on. The successful and meritorious could expect to serve in some of the Empire’s highest positions.

Taxation

Dhimmis paid two special taxes: jizya (a tribute or a poll tax) and kharaj (land tax). Ottoman ulema ruled that this rule still was in use, but since all agricultural land belonged to the State, it applied to private holdings.

Another tax was taken from all peasants. Many other dues levied on peasants and traders were heavier for dhimmis than for Muslims. The Ottomans continued to levy the poll tax in lieu of military service.

Originally it was levied only on free men who could earn and afford to pay it. Later on, ministers, rabbinical representatives, the chief rabbi, teachers, slaughterers, and a few Jewish families in Istanbul were excluded. Many Christian families obtained a decree from the sultan that made them exempt. It’s estimated that only one-third of all eligible dhimmis paid this tax during the State’s later period.

During the nineteenth century, the land tax was abolished (in principle) and yet retained as a compensation for military duty. Shortly thereafter, Istanbul’s people were exempted from it in toto, although it was still collected in the provinces. Until the republican era, all non-Muslims (except for Istanbul residents) paid only a military and a road tax.

Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community’s rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim.

Such a policy was unknown in Europe at that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state’s very raison d’etre.

Islamic law, and shari’a, forbids non-Muslims, known as dhimmi, from possessing arms and defending themselves from attacks by Muslims. The disarmament is one aspect of the pervasive civil inferiority imposed on non-Muslims, a status known as dhimmitude.

In Islamic nations, this disarmament had catastrophic consequences, extending far beyond the direct loss of the dhimmis’ ability to defend themselves against Muslim attack. Disarmament provides an example of negative interfaith relations.

The disarmament story and the second-class status imposed on Christians and Jews has implications for the modern United States, where there is no shari’a law, but some subgroups of the population have been condemned, in effect, to a disarmed and defenseless status of civil inferiority.

Perhaps the ancient tragedy of dhimmitude has something to teach us.

In 628 A.D., Mohammad and his followers attacked the Jews who lived at the oasis of Khaybar, over a hundred miles northwest of Medina. The Jews surrendered after a siege. Mohammad allowed the Jews to continue living at the oasis, if they gave him half the dates from their orchards. Mohammad reserved the right to expel the Jews whenever he chose. Mohammad’s behavior became a standard for treatment of conquered Jews and Christians, called dhimmi.

Mohammad instructed:

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and his apostles have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute jizya out of hand and are utterly subdued.

The jizya was a special tax on dhimmi.

Scholars have debated whether the humiliation should be in the form of non-Muslims having to pay the tax personally by carrying it in hand, whether the tax should be so high that non-Muslims are humiliated, or whether non-Muslims should be humiliated and subdued in every aspect of life.

Forced conversions were the rule for conquered pagans; however, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (all of whom were monotheists) were allowed to keep their religion, if they accepted dhimmi status. Even conquered Hindus and Buddhists were given dhimmi status in areas where they were so numerous that forced conversions were impossible to impose.

Dhimmi were inferior subjects. They were forbidden to keep or bear arms. Not even a cane was allowed. The arms ban also outlawed the wearing of military clothing.

The only method by which a Christian might bear arms was by becoming a janissary, a captive career soldier. The Muslim military would round up the best-looking and strongest Christian teenage boys in a town. The boys were taken away from their families forever, forcibly converted into Islam, and turned into élite soldiers.

The janissaries were early adopters of firearms and a foundation of Ottoman military strength. Shari’a law imposed many other restrictions on dhimmi, including a prohibition of dhimmi wearing the color green, the traditional color of Islam, or luxurious clothing.

The dhimmi could not stand on a roof, lest they see a Muslim woman bathing. They could not build homes taller than Muslim homes. Dhimmi could not ring church bells, pray, or perform public religious ceremonies where a Muslim might see the dhimmi. Shari’a law banned the construction of new synagogues or churches, as well as exterior repair.

Dhimmi could not ride on horses with saddles, and sometimes could not ride horses at all. Within the dhimmi communities however, the dhimmi were generally allowed to govern themselves by their own laws.

The prohibition preventing specific groups from bearing arms placed the indigenous masses in a state of permanent insecurity and humiliating inferiority. Because of the arms ban and the other aspects of dhimmitude, The individual became resigned to a passive existence, and developed a feeling of helplessness and vulnerability, the consequence of a condition of permanent insecurity, servility, and ignorance.

Reduced to an inferior existence in circumstances that engender physical and moral degradation, the dhimmi perceived and accepted himself as a devalued human being. Theoretically, the dhimmi were entitled to protection from the state. In practice, they often had to pay special protection bribes to the local governors or gangs. The dhimmi suffered “endemic lack of security on the highways.”

Because they could not carry arms, the dhimmi frequently had to travel in groups accompanied by paid Muslim guards. A Muslim who killed a Jew might, at the most, have to pay a fine, and frequently did not face any punishment at all.

In Yemen, if a Muslim killed a Jew protected by a different Muslim tribe, the slain Jew‟s protecting tribe would kill a Jew protected by the offending tribe. Thus, the Muslim killer would receive no personal penalty. In addition, the Muslim courts generally did not accept Jewish testimony.

If a Muslim attacked or insulted a Jew, Shari’a law prohibited the Jew from fighting back. If a Jew used force to resist the attack, the government might undertake reprisals against the entire Jewish community. So a crowd of Muslim boys could freely chase an elderly Jew through the streets, pelting him with rocks.

America is nearly the only nation not filled with secular dhimmis. This means a subject population, subjugated by a ruling class, and a ruling philosophy.

The same techniques used to humiliate and debilitate Christians, Jews, and all other belief systems in Islamic societies, is used in America to control and incapacitate anyone not part of the ruling ideology or holding an official position or crony corporate job.

Listen to an ex muslim please!

I am ex muslim and studied islamic studies at university.

Islam is no mere of a religion. It is a global ideology and a life style. Islam gives form at every corner -dress code, language, thinking style, etc. Hijab or skullcap is a political symbol, islamic life with its everything is political and affects all life.

Muslims see the world in two perspective: Dar ul Harb(War home) and Dar ul islam (islam home). The Doctrine of Jihad is simply a way of converting all countries and all non muslims in the world. It includes all of us.

Slogan of islam was so during its history,fulled with war,:

Accept islam, pay jizya (tribute,taken of non muslims) or die.

in fact, this slogan is only for struggle.

When accepting jizya,this is not the end. An islamic state is a ideological state and use oppression on all non muslims.

Dhimmutes couldnt ride a horse,use weapon,they couldnt work on some jobs(governorship,office etc.Because Non Muslims do not have right to govern muslims),

They had to wear special dresses which shows being non muslim.They couldnt build new churches, synagoges, temples,they(non muslims) couldnt show their religious ceremonies.

Even they couldnt build their houses higher than Muslims. These are the cause of Muslim population,nearly all of non muslims,in islamic geography,chose islam to escape oppression.

Jihad is the key doctrine of islam and cause of islamic invasion, islamic Conquests.in only 100 years,They conquested Atlantic Ocean to Khorasan).Look at the geography:

You have to know islam and its history. West is not my fetish,it is only the symbol of democracy, secularism and law. We have to save West,Europe. This is our only way out.

There were no secularism, democracy, civilism in islam. Merit, which westerners believe in, has no place in islam.

There is no radical islam. There is no moderate islam(there can be moderate muslims,but there is no moderate islam) i say this as a graduated student from islamic studies.

You can be target of islamic terror at every corner. There are many religious arguments in islam to kill civilians when certain conditions are met.

islam is watching you slowly collapsing. Muslims use democracy to bring sharia. Worst side of democracy is to give rights people who destroy Democracy.

﻿ One thing that sets the current racial justice movement apart from its predecessors is the intentional centering of voices that have previously been marginalized—even within movement spaces.

While the media still primarily pays attention to institutionalized racism when a black heterosexual cisgender man is killed by police, organizers on the ground are looking to grow a movement that ensures liberation across sexual, gender, and class identity.

– WOW! Can you imagine what a shambles the English language will be, by the time the BLM’ers and comrades co-seize national power?

Concludes Opal:

I think it’s been really important to also say that my black queer sisters; People are like, “Oh wow, queer women helped to start this?”

People perk up and listen in different ways and identify in different ways when they really know who it is that started this thing.

Lastly, we don’t want it to be about ego. It’s not about ego, but it’s also about historical memory and the truth, so we in many ways are stepping more and more into our own leadership.

People have identified what they want and who they want to be speaking and sharing, so part of our responsibility now is just to own that and step into that and listen to our elders who are saying, “Yes, go Opal go! Go Patrice! Share your stories. Lead this movement.”

I have a lot of elders who are calling me up these days and really encouraging me, even from a distance and it’s been really beautiful to see.

– Whatever things each of us try to do, if our lives are going to matter, and assuming they’ll often be outside the tiny dot of allowed behavior, we must strive not to get “caught.” To never confide in unknown individuals. Nor allow any of the mainstream minions arrogated air of superiority, to affect us in our pursuits.

Here’s an “extreme” example of what they’ll say, if we do get “caught” doing much of anything at all, that violates their trillions of fatwas designed to keep us all stupefied and unable to do the things required, for us to enjoy our time on Earth.

The foreseeable consequence of returning again and again to drugs and dealing caught up with Torrey Ezra Clark on Thursday when he got his ticket to prison.

Five years and 10 months behind bars, followed by five years of federal supervision, are intended to finally break the Floyd County man’s addiction and keep people safe in the meantime.

“You need to be incarcerated so you don’t come back on the street and supply this kind of poison to folks,” Judge Michael Urbanski said.

Urbanski said Clark, 28, fits the pattern of a young person who got hooked on drugs and never got the message from initial judicial sanctions to stop.

The first drug crime on his record — for methamphetamine possession — came in 2006, when he was 19, the judge said. A court convicted him again of a drug offense in 2008, of credit card fraud in 2009 and of a meth production offense in 2013.

But Clark was sober enough in spring 2013 to stand up at a community forum in his hometown and describe the perils of illegal drug use. “I grew up in a good home, with a good family and was brought up in a good way. Meth can reach anybody,” he said in a story in The Roanoke Times.
Later in 2013 he turned to drugs again.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection alerted local representatives of the Department of Homeland Security to an incoming package addressed to Clark. When they opened it before it was delivered, investigators determined that it contained 1,4-Butanediol.

The conventional application of the compound is as an industrial solvent good for stripping floors and thinning paint. But when it is ingested, the compound becomes GHB, or gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, a tightly regulated depressant.

GHB is an ingredient in a prescription narcolepsy medicine. It is also abused for its euphoric and sedative effects and used as a “date rape drug.”

Homeland Security special agent Christopher Cummings said he disguised himself as a FedEx delivery man using a uniform and a white van to which he taped a FedEx logo taken from an envelope. There were no funds for a more elaborate setup, but it worked, he said. Clark came to the door and signed for the package. Authorities moved in and searched his home.

Clark pleaded guilty June 5 to charges that he imported 5 liters of 1,4-Butanediol from China and resold it in 2-ounce vials on underground websites to anonymous buyers.

Authorities said they had no evidence that Clark used the compound as a date rape drug and no direct evidence that others to whom he sold it did so. He took it for the high and sold it for income, according to testimony. Admitting that his client has a serious drug addiction, defense lawyer Jimmy Turk said Clark needs incarceration where he can get care.

Clark apologized and thanked Urbanski for the careful attention he gave the case. “It’s definitely not something I’m proud of,” Clark said. Urbanski said the federal court process against him had one goal: “to keep you from coming back here again.”

The judge acknowledged Clark as smart — for buying drugs abroad for domestic resale and for using computer encryption to cloak his communications — and told him he can have a productive life.

The secret is to get rehabilitation in prison and gain new skills, the judge said. “This does not have to define you as a human being,” Urbanski said. But it could be difficult.

Part of the family that Clark said was one of his assets in life is gone. His parents, Robert Clark and Pamela Clark, were killed in an Aug. 21 motorcycle wreck in Henry County. He also has a sister.

Sometimes you have to swim through the poison and fear, if you want to be able to find the truth.

But that is not to say, that is the end goal. State the facts and assign meaning to the facts as you see them.

But don’t stop their, stewing in anger or consternation. Put in the time to find trends, and causes of the problems. So that you can strike one deadly blow to the root of the evil. Rather than spend endless ours yanking on the branches, and only stripping off the leaves of the evil.

Surely there are other ways than this of course. But I can only speak from the perspectives I know and understand. And hope others will come a long later, and move the conversation and action further down the road towards the kind of society, we really want to have.

Not going to leave a long comment – but rather would like to say that all the “authorities” that exist out there – are outright FRAUDS.

NO ONE has authority over ANYONE – unless they CONSENT to it.

Imagine a “free” society, where you have a collection on various able-bodied and skilled individuals. Naturally – there will be a so-called “born-leader.”

Most often, those “free societies” (voluntarily) choose leaders that can keep them safe, have sensible minds, and so on. There are actually people out there that are capable of such feats (without corruption).

But in our modern world – I fear this will never happen again. All those that are “chosen,” are put in place to further an agenda that is well out of our purview.

The sad thing in my opinion is – that we ALL outnumber the “powers that be,” yet no one is willing to battle for what is right.

Even if just 20% of the population “banded together” that would be enough to put an end to the “racket.”

I think that is the first step. Essential, and not to be skipped. Well said, especially the part where you admit, “I fear…”

Of course there is fear, when you are a human, and not another bobble-head who’s only ambition is to seek the best dashboard to affix himself to, and then to feel like he truly is somebody, because he’s riding in someone else’s vehicle, and going along for a pig in a poke ride.

All Harlan Ellison books turned into scripts and then movies, have this as the essential core event.

Of course the narrative are always depicted in some mutilated and unworkable way. But you should be able to do the math in your mind, if you’ll only try.

Terminator – “Smash those metal motherf’ers into junk.” Better version, build superior tech. Modify mainstream devices to serve you. Disable murdering tech. Construct and assemble in redoubts. Learn to hide in plain sight, and only pretend to comply and obey when seen, then do what is necessary when you’re unseen.

I have known of Barack (Barry) Obama, probably longer then most people (unless you’re from the Chicago area) on this site. He first come to be known outside of a handful of cr*ppy south side neighborhoods, as a newly elected state representative in the statehouse in Springfield. That in itself doesn’t mean much, as there are several guys not all that much different from him representing south side areas of Chicago, many who keep those offices for decades, because they will never do better then that. Just holding one of those offices tells you something about the character (or more likely the lack of character) of someone and it’s not a good thing.

If fate had not smiled on him for reasons few seem to know, he would likely still be in that office, and likely would have held it until he was an old man. He is a product of the meat grinding, Democrat machine of Chicago, nothing more. He is nothing special at all. The only thing that got himself to rise higher then most, was to keep the sleazy at arm’s length, even though he was hip deep like everyone else, maybe even more. Its hard to find information about his early elections, but many were dirty even by Chicago standards. There is a reason why few Chicago politicians rise to the national stage.

The first I heard of him, when a friend who was a student at the University of Chicago got stuck in a class taught by him. He was not well liked by my friend, and it turns out, that was the general opinion of him. He was seen as disconnected, lazy just to name a few. Of course, that record has been cleaned up too, his low ranking on sites like “rate a prof” long gone. There was a reason why he was never a permanent full time tenured professor of the U of C, because he really wasn’t up to their level. I don’t think that bothered him at all, as his political career was starting to take hold.

His early career before all that, put him not all that far from where I was growing up in the south suburbs of Chicago (I’m in my early 40’s). Less then ten miles from my working blue collar middle class suburb, just on the other side of the river (the cal sag) Obama was a “community” organizer. He did nothing of substance for that community, as it is arguably even worse then it was back in the 1980’s. I think few people even in that neighborhood even knew he was even there, back then. My mom thinks she may have met him once when she was working for the public school system at the time. She remembers a “Barry” who she is pretty sure was him. But she met a lot of “talkers” back then, and found all them equally useless.

He came on the national stage for most at the Democrat convention in 2004. He had been elected US senator from Illinois after the Republican, Jack Ryan quit the race when he was embroiled in a sex scandal involving his wife, the actress Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 from star trek fame, yes really). Had Ryan not left the race, Obama would have been easily defeated as his numbers were terrible up to that point.

Obama showed little interest in being Senator from Illinois at that point (he rarely did his statehouse job either) and as we know, didn’t even hold the job for a term. He knew this was his one and only shot at the White House. Waiting for a decade or two wouldn’t have worked out, as more of his murky past would become public. That speech in 2004 was the beginning of his campaign as far as I am concerned.

His biggest gift may be the fact he managed to come out as clean and above the fray during his Illinois days. He was never seen by the public and the press as corrupt during his time in the statehouse and senate. I think he still thinks he has that reputation.

He needs to thank the guy who invented the tele a prompter, as the few times he isn’t reading from that, he rambles and doesn’t seem to know what to say. I think he actually is a terrible speech giver.

But it is telling how this nobody, managed to go from nowhere to the White House. Even Bill Clinton’s rise from a trailer in Arkansas makes more sense.

“There is a reason why few Chicago politicians rise to the national stage. ” Oh contraire, very few from Chicago don’t rise to the national stage. Once they can no longer contain one of their “scandals”, they always “rise”‘ to that stage. Quite a few have risen to highest ranking celebrity in prison during their too-short stay.

Too many, such as the Daly’s never get indicted for any of their countless, unspeakable crimes…….and the beat goes on……..

That’s part of the reason why I believed Obama would be a continuation of Bush jr. He’s an empty suit. An institutional social climber. In other areas often I try to explain to Obama supporters from outside Illinois what he is doing. He plays standard Illinois politics, but they don’t get it.

If you want to understand why fate smiled upon Obama, read the article titled “All in the Company” by Wayne Madsen. Once you know the facts presented there everything about Barry makes sense provided of course one has a baseline understanding of the CIA in the post WW2 world and what they do both internationally and domestically.

We relocated Katrina victims to FEMA camps, we could do something similar – refugee camps, tent cities, where they would be fed, clothed, and sheltered (think Japanese or POW WW2 camps). But no food stamps, rentals, stipends, broadband or other things – if you come here and say you are under threat of execution if you return, we can keep you alive and well, but where when possible, you will go back to the region or your home country (or maybe even send you back with enough arms and training to fight your oppressors – maybe Central America would look better if we sent all the aliens back with a rifle and copy of the constitution, and air drop ammo once they are there).

And note the GOP put their establishment guy, Mitt Romneycare in as the nominee when if it was nearly anyone else (especially Ron Paul), they would have won an easy victory against Obama’s abysmal approval ratings. I’m not sure it wouldn’t be worse if it was Romney – he wouldn’t have stopped Obamacare, but might have delayed the collapse several years.

Charity begins at your own home, not government, so I would have any immigrant have to have a US sponsor that would be responsible for any fines, debts, expenses, and would be held as an accessory to any crime, and have to put up a bond that would be refunded 20% each year over 5 years if there were no unpaid debts. On that basis, sponsor as many as you can afford, get insurance for, etc.

tz, you make valid points. And if it weren’t mainly because of Republicans and their totalitarian laws, we’d have many fewer immigrants. If I lived in a country that was wracked with warfare, either from straight up US intervention and meddling and military killing or the War on Drugs that’s created tens of thousands(probably more like hundreds of thousands deaths, not to mention casualties from countless reasons, I’d certainly want out too.

We have more people fleeing the US every day. The IRS does it’s worst to see that fewer and fewer leave since it’s the moneyed crowd for the main part who can and are leaving.

Every part of the gunvermin is doing it’s part to create and maintain a prison nation.

As the well-heeled bureaucrat with servants and a palacial home(Pirate Radio) said ‘That’s the great part about being the government……if you don’t like something you simply make it illegal”……..10-4 good buddy……

POPULAR CATEGORY

Eric started out writing about cars for mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal.